Would tanks be okay if SE swapped the damage between tank and healers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

So long as the fight ends by reducing the enemy's HP to 0, all contribution --no matter how indirect-- is ultimately via more quickly reducing the enemy's HP to 0 (even if through a bit more uptime via Expedient, a healer GCD saved, or whatever else). The primary way tank sustain contributes to rDPS outside of not needing to be rezzed is just... more healer offensive GCDs. But you can only push that sustain so far before it becomes redundant, failing to provide any difference to clear time or chance of success.

Why, then, would having excess sustain be in the tank's interest? And similarly, why would it be in the tank's interest to have higher maximum damage than healers, thereby reducing the relative value of proper use of sustain (rewarded through increased healer DPS)?

---

Excess sustain/utility is useful during prog, as it allows recovery in case healer dies/busy with rezzing and stabilizing somebody else/when having misplaced mits etc.

Sure when fight is optimized it might be so superfluous in that it does not save healers any GCDs, but it is still there just in case.

Good example of that is WAR Equilibrium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somnolence

Excess sustain/utility is useful during prog, as it allows recovery in case healer dies/busy with rezzing and stabilizing somebody else/when having misplaced mits etc.

Sure when fight is optimized it might be so superfluous in that it does not save healers any GCDs, but it is still there just in case.

Good example of that is WAR Equilibrium.

---

I'm not disagreeing that some excess sustain potential is good, but neither was it my point.

All excess tank sustain rewards, ultimately, healer DPS. The more free sustain tanks have, the less likely they are to see any difference in reward as it actually matters (i.e., provides any benefit to the chance or speed of beating the given encounter). And, the lower healer maximum or per-GCD damage is, the less reward good use of sustain (be it flat or scaled, healing or mitigation) gives. One would think there would be far less outcry from tank "mains", then, to keep healers inferior, seeing as tanks now have zero swing available to them by which to usefully spend excess sustain (e.g., on Fell Cleave's over Inner Beast, on TP instead of HP, etc.).

Though, as an aside, there is also a large difference between having a massive heal like Equilibrium be both typically excess to requirement (for Warrior having already met the sustain of other tanks even without it) while being at no cost to damage and a tool like Clemency, which can spend rDPS through the tank on recovery or on rDPS through the healer (even if that is worthwhile only if/when the healer offensive GCD is disproportionately impactful (as used to be the reason for a stronger-spam-attack WHM handling heals while the weaker-spam-attack SCH redots, etc.) or one can benefit from Clemency's bonus (50% of healing to others duplicated to self).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somnolence

Excess sustain/utility is useful during prog, as it allows recovery in case healer dies/busy with rezzing and stabilizing somebody else/when having misplaced mits etc.

Sure when fight is optimized it might be so superfluous in that it does not save healers any GCDs, but it is still there just in case.

Good example of that is WAR Equilibrium.

---

I personally don't mind the tank sustains... But because of them and the general design of fights, I think they should give Healers another way to contribute than just healing. But they don't want to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somnolence

Excess sustain/utility is useful during prog, as it allows recovery in case healer dies/busy with rezzing and stabilizing somebody else/when having misplaced mits etc.

Sure when fight is optimized it might be so superfluous in that it does not save healers any GCDs, but it is still there just in case.

Good example of that is WAR Equilibrium.

---

That just goes back to the point of the post though. If tanks are able to act as emergency stabilisers for other party members if the healer either makes a mistake themself or makes a bad decision trying to correct another’s mistake (such as hard rezzing while the party needs healing) and this emergency stabilisation doesn’t hurt the tanks damage in any way then why do tanks just do 30% more damage by default when its healers who’s damage actually suffers from triage while the tanks can both triage and lose no damage in the process

If you can cover for the healer when needed and have it cost no DPS while the healer is doing other things that do cost them DPS why in a perfect environment when neither side is losing damage do tanks still do more damage especially when healers also have caster uptime concerns

Pretty sure some healers can do more damage depending on the gear they have on but just in case please correct me if I'm wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf_Necros

Pretty sure some healers can do more damage depending on the gear they have on but just in case please correct me if I'm wrong

---

Doing more damage by nature of having more gear is a pretty pointless comparison especially if you consider in statics healers are last in gear priority

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf_Necros

Pretty sure some healers can do more damage depending on the gear they have on but just in case please correct me if I'm wrong

---

Gear shouldn't even factor into discussion of inter-job balance.

An i730 MCH can easily outdamage an i710 SAM, that doesn't make the damage gap between them any smaller.

Same case that a WHM with an i735 weapon outdamaging a WAR with an i710 weapon doesn't mean anything because the WAR will handily outdamage that WHM every single time when they both hit the maximum item level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf_Necros

Pretty sure some healers can do more damage depending on the gear they have on but just in case please correct me if I'm wrong

---

If the tank is horribly undergeared compared to the healer sure... But that's like noting that people in Savage gear do more damage than people with the ilvl 700 tomestone gear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aravell

Gear shouldn't even factor into discussion of inter-job balance.

An i730 MCH can easily outdamage an i710 SAM, that doesn't make the damage gap between them any smaller.

Same case that a WHM with an i735 weapon outdamaging a WAR with an i710 weapon doesn't mean anything because the WAR will handily outdamage that WHM every single time when they both hit the maximum item level.

---

I actually think even then, a tank with an ilvl with 710 will still out damage a healer with an ilvl of 735 due to diminishing returns in stats which I think speaks even more wonders. It's the multipliers on the skills and the lot of them that make up the difference. Tanks do: healing, damage, and tanking, they supersede the trinity...which is horrible design imo. All sustain from nonsustains should be removed and tank sustain nerfed (or removed depending on what it is)...if Square gave nonsustains sustain because it lessens pressure on newer healers, that wasn't a good solution; a good solution would be either teaching the new healers to get better and/or making the kit actually synergize better with itself (that doesn't mean add healing bloat though, in fact the opposite is better in reducing it. This would make people that are new to the role understand what button is meant for what and why; the way we have it now, the heal buttons are overloaded...resulting in newer players asking "What do I press?" [When a lot of those buttons just do the same thing in terms of healing]...or even worse them being overwhelmed by the amount of buttons and therefore not pressing anything or timing anything correctly.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katish

a good solution would be either teaching the new healers to get better and/or making the kit actually synergize better with itself (that doesn't mean add healing bloat though, in fact the opposite is better in reducing it. This would make people that are new to the role understand what button is meant for what and why; the way we have it now, the heal buttons are overloaded...resulting in newer players asking "What do I press?" [When a lot of those buttons just do the same thing in terms of healing]...or even worse them being overwhelmed by the amount of buttons and therefore not pressing anything or timing anything correctly.).

---

Yeah that's a good point. The modern high-level heal kit is a slew of buttons nobody ought to need. It's okay to have some extra healing buttons, but if they're not interesting for mechanical reasons, or if they're just duplications of already existing ideas, then they really ought to exist only to cover a few bases like GCD single, oGCD group emergency, that kind of stuff. Rather make the existing abilities stronger and more usable to make healers fly with a reduced set of say, 4 core heals 1-2 emergency heals and 2-3 flavour heals.

Then add a bit more damage flavor to each of the jobs, ideally with a low focus on GCDs (as those ought to be kept open for healing, in particular for newer healers), then massively increase the amount of damage to be healed, but maybe reduce the immediacy of it. That is, you need to heal 3x-4x the amount of damage, but you got 2x++ the amount of time, too. Take your time, just make sure you do heal everything, the next round of damage is coming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobby66

So I was wondering would tanks be okay if say healers did more damage than tanks, and tanks did around the same damage healers do right now so healers are not sidelined in the speed running meta?

I ask because I said overall this would be a messed up nerf, but was wondering if others felt the same.

Edit: I agree adjustments do have to be made but I just don't see what really could be done that really solves the core issue healers have atm which is engagement that does not ripple into lower end content.

Personally I think having such wide access to in combat raises does add to trivialize content at times, and I do think overall tanks do have far too high sustain. Just idk if adjusting that would bolster the healing role per-se or just make it more stressful for many players because that is a sudden responsibility shift that has not been present in the game for a long time.

What suggestions does the tanking community have that could increase the overall enjoy and engagement with healers without impacting tanks that much.

...

---

Quite frankly, I don't care if a heal, tank or dog Dps more than me, depending on what I'm playing.

As long as the dungeon is finished in 15 minutes, what really bothers me are the groups of tourists where: People die at every boss, low dps or it goes at the same speed with the Scions because there might as well Leave and go do it with the Scions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carighan

That is, you need to heal 3x-4x the amount of damage, but you got 2x++ the amount of time, too. Take your time, just make sure you do heal everything, the next round of damage is coming.

---

I do wonder if that's such a good idea, static regen counts for a lot of healing potential and I think going too long between damage bursts is just going to shift the paradigm from the kind of massive healing capacity that healers can bring to bear to just maintaining regens instead. I would prefer, and feel more engaged, if the system encouraged me to think about which heals I apply to deal with a given situation. That might also call for an adjustment to how various heals work but if the game plays to that then I'm okay with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

Doing more damage by nature of having more gear is a pretty pointless comparison especially if you consider in statics healers are last in gear priority

---

I wonder where they are in glove priority.

That's literally asking SE to completely change how enmity works, on top of asking for what you are asking for. Enmity is partially based on how much damage is done. I don't know the exact math on it but I imagine it would probably be something along the lines of:

base enmity generation + % of damage done

Never mind the fact that the entire reason your healing is so "not fun" as described is because you still can't keep dark knights alive during wall to wall dungeon pulls to save your life when said healing is actually required, proving to Square Enix that it's still not safe to nerf warrior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnjouMaaka

That's literally asking SE to completely change how enmity works, on top of asking for what you are asking for. Enmity is partially based on how much damage is done. I don't know the exact math on it but I imagine it would probably be something along the lines of:

base enmity generation + % of damage done

Never mind the fact that the entire reason your healing is so "not fun" as described is because you still can't keep dark knights alive during wall to wall dungeon pulls to save your life when said healing is actually required, proving to Square Enix that it's still not safe to nerf warrior.

---

You don’t understand how tank stance works apparently

As a tank main, I'd rather do less damage than a healer but still have a fun rotation, than do DPS level damage but have one button spam gameplay OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH

All that changes is a number, hopefully if this change goes through, more people will play healer and I get quicker fills in PF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

You don’t understand how tank stance works apparently

---

I understand how tank stance works. I wouldn't be a tank main if I didn't. Tank stance simply states that it greatly enhances enmity generation. How tank stance boosts enmity generation isn't part of the equation here because my point is to show that the OP's suggestion is bad and poorly thought out. It fixes healer design at the cost of everyone else's fun. Even with tank stance, it would likely be a whole mess like what we had at the start of this expansion where they buffed tank enmity because even with tank stance, pictomancer's damage was affecting the % of damage done part of that equation too easily. If they have that much trouble getting enmity correct with things as is, you really want them to do what the OP is suggesting? Tanks won't be able to hold aggro at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnjouMaaka

I understand how tank stance works. I wouldn't be a tank main if I didn't. Tank stance simply states that it greatly enhances enmity generation. How tank stance boosts enmity generation isn't part of the equation here because my point is to show that the OP's suggestion is bad and poorly thought out. It fixes healer design at the cost of everyone else's fun. Even with tank stance, it would likely be a whole mess like what we had at the start of this expansion where they buffed tank enmity because even with tank stance, pictomancer's damage was affecting the % of damage done part of that equation too easily. If they have that much trouble getting enmity correct with things as is, you really want them to do what the OP is suggesting? Tanks won't be able to hold aggro at all.

---

Pictomancers damage wasn’t messed up square just pandered to bad tanks who spent all of endwalker walking up and looking at the trash and getting agro, shockingly when a class has front loaded damage you actually have to group the trash and give them some damage before moving on. That’s not a flaw in angry generation that’s a flaw in people’s ability to tank. If you do half and AOE then run halfway across the map it’s not the Pictomancers fault if they rip agro.

Changing tanks and healer damage would do literally nothing to how ridiculously high tank agro generation is unless you are really really bad at tanking and are too used to EW’s design where you barely even tanked

Ironic coming from the person constantly preaching that tank sustain is the only defence poor tank mains have against the encroaching bad healing dictatorship or something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnjouMaaka

That's literally asking SE to completely change how enmity works, on top of asking for what you are asking for. Enmity is partially based on how much damage is done. I don't know the exact math on it but I imagine it would probably be something along the lines of:

base enmity generation + % of damage done

Never mind the fact that the entire reason your healing is so "not fun" as described is because you still can't keep dark knights alive during wall to wall dungeon pulls to save your life when said healing is actually required, proving to Square Enix that it's still not safe to nerf warrior.

---

There is a minute amount of additional enmity per action against an enemy or benefiting a player the enemies are engaged against. But by minute I mean the value of ~100 damage. Vs. the total amount done by, say, Xenoglossy.

The % of damage done is the far, far larger part, and --far more importantly-- it is modified by your Enmity stance's multiplier. The stance does not supply a mere flat value.

The % modifier amount they apparently thought was "too little" was 1000% enmity. Now it's higher with AoE openers having a further, multiplicatively stacking modifier atop that.

Quote:

---

proving to Square Enix that it's still not safe to nerf warrior.

---

Then I suppose it's still not safe to have anything less than an 8-Warrior party?

And, most importantly...

Quote:

---

That's literally asking SE to completely change how enmity works

---

No part of the OP asks, no matter how indirectly, for a change to how Enmity works.

We tanks have enough Enmity to spend more than 80% of our AoE time idle and still hold threat. In single target, that falls only to perhaps 70%. It's still tremendously excessive. A nerf of ~15% dps would in no way require a change to Enmity formulas or its surrounding systems. We'd still have an excess of, at minimum, some 300%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

Pictomancers damage wasn’t messed up square just pandered to bad tanks who spent all of endwalker walking up and looking at the trash and getting agro, shockingly when a class has front loaded damage you actually have to group the trash and give them some damage before moving on. That’s not a flaw in angry generation that’s a flaw in people’s ability to tank. If you do half and AOE then run halfway across the map it’s not the Pictomancers fault if they rip agro.

Changing tanks and healer damage would do literally nothing to how ridiculously high tank agro generation is unless you are really really bad at tanking and are too used to EW’s design where you barely even tanked

Ironic coming from the person constantly preaching that tank sustain is the only defence poor tank mains have against the encroaching bad healing dictatorship or something

---

I think you've lost the entire point of the thread just from reading that. Not my problem. They buffed enmity generation because of it. Get over it. Clearly not a skill issue if it got addressed by the devs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

There is a minute amount of additional enmity per action against an enemy or benefiting a player the enemies are engaged against. But by minute I mean the value of ~100 damage. Vs. the total amount done by, say, Xenoglossy.

The % of damage done is the far, far larger part, and --far more importantly-- it is modified by your Enmity stance's multiplier. The stance does not supply a mere flat value.

The % modifier amount they apparently thought was "too little" was 1000% enmity. Now it's higher with AoE openers having a further, multiplicatively stacking modifier atop that.


Then I suppose it's still not safe to have anything less than an 8-Warrior party?

And, most importantly...

No part of the OP asks, no matter how indirectly, for a change to how Enmity works.

We tanks have enough Enmity to spend more than 80% of our AoE time idle and still hold threat. In single target, that falls only to perhaps 70%. It's still tremendously excessive. A nerf of ~15% dps would in no way require a change to Enmity formulas or its surrounding systems. We'd still have an excess of, at minimum, some 300%.

---

Like I said, I don't know the actual equation for it. I was just giving an example of how it could be formulated. What the OP is asking for ignores so many aspects of the game just to satisfy their "lack of fun" when playing healers. Enmity is only one of those aspects.

No, it's not ignoring a damn thing. Nor is the OP even asking for... anything. It's a literal question.

Now, even if we were to swap maximum tank output with healers' maximum, that affects solely tanks' damage and, thereby, whether parties' rDPS is punished for bringing healers unnecessarily (instead of replacing them with tanks). It would remove that punishment without power creeping the game by taking about a sixth of tanks' damage and giving it to healers.

Because tanks still have about triple the Enmity and double the effective sustain (when including passive advantage, split across both tanks) necessary to make them an rDPS advantage to take 2 of (where an OT is made necessary due to twinned attacks, excessive splits, vulns, or excessive TBs in general; else, 1), this would only reduce it from an rDPS advantage to take up to 4 tanks (where more than 2 could be required for raidwide or spot-healing) back to the intended 2.

For a decrease in damage to affect tanks' ability to hold threat, they would have to be currently at risk of losing threat. Outside of gross incompetence, disconnects, or having less than 30% uptime, etc., they are not. For it to affect enjoyment, players would have to care solely about their personal output, as opposed to their rDPS indirectly provided. Doubtless some do, but that's not a preference worth rendering another role redundant for. A DPS may as well base their enjoyability of their role on their ability to solo current content or a healer on their ability to deal damage equal to a DPS; that's not a factor worth appealing to given its cost to so much more players, and so much greater degree, than it would improve even if such players made up the whole of their respective roles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

For a decrease in damage to affect tanks' ability to hold threat, they would have to be currently at risk of losing threat. Outside of gross incompetence, disconnects, or having less than 30% uptime, etc., they are not. For it to affect enjoyment, players would have to care solely about their personal output, as opposed to their rDPS indirectly provided. Doubtless some do, but that's not a preference worth rendering another role redundant for. A DPS may as well base their enjoyability of their role on their ability to solo current content or a healer on their ability to deal damage equal to a DPS; that's not a factor worth appealing to given its cost to so much more players, and so much greater degree, than it would improve even if such players made up the whole of their respective roles.

---

Yep. I've intentionally turned my tank stance off again as the offtank so often in savage fights (so I don't have to track whether I overaggro later) if there's no swapping, might as well, not like after a few combos anyone will be #2 instead of my until the very end of the fight. Tank emnity is ridiculous, tbh.